|
Are Vocal Trance bad for Trance? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Astral7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by isoterra
yuck, those vocals were horrid! prime example of an excellent tune ruined by singing imo :( |
check out the Dumonde Mix again...you can't say it ruined anything there, if anything it made the song better
but eh...everybody's got it's own opinion |
|
|
| DJ Dingel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cobalt
On a related note, I think I've finally switched preference to the original version of Perception, though I still quite like the vocal. |
I've always preferred the original version (I was horrified when I first heard the vocal version, though I now have more sympathy for it; it's catchy), but I think you and I are in the minority these days. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| It's a question of how they're employed. Vocals in trance are not bad by default- it's about how those vocals fit into the music. If you're going to construct a really good trance record and have vocals as another melodic element, it's fine. If you're going to write some vocals and build some trance-flavoured trappings around them, it isn't. And so forth. |
|
|
| iced_donuts |
| how bad was do you know by angel city? it ruined children by robert miles :( singing over a good song doesnt mean your version is going to be good. |
|
|
| Sykonee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
So I've always tried to deferentiate the two (tell people, it's not techno!). And one of the things that kind of bugs me about this continuing debate, is that there are so many artists and DJs that are labeled trance, that if you take trance just to mean really fast, repetitive and rhythmic music, you take out more than half of what has been produced and who DJ the style. And they do have a tendency to blend progressive with epic. There are some who are just epic, but they aren't quite as big or even respected (like George Acosta, he's all epic, anthem after anthem). If you want to continue this discussion, PM me, cause I have to go and I don't want to take up this thread with it, thanks. |
Nah, I can continue it here. Maybe some of the kidz will learn something along with this. ;)
I've an old compilation called Trance Traxx. Here are some of the tracks on it:
Snap! - Rhythm Is A Dancer
Captain Hollywood Project - Transformation
Le Park - Litchies
Hope - Tree Frog
Jaydee - Plastic Dreams
Now, there are some 'traxx' on this that would probably be deemed proper trance, but THESE one? The point here is just because something gets a 'trance' tag on it doesn't mean it really is. More likely it was used as a promotional tool, not as a means to put these tracks into a trance category.
The same can be said for a LOT of compilations and DJ mixes from around the late 90s/early '00s. In fact, this was how so much euro dance from then became regarded as trance, because they were put on compilations with a trance tag on them. But that doesn't make them actually trance any more than that old compilation made Plastic Dreams trance, despite some similarities in style. |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It's a question of how they're employed. Vocals in trance are not bad by default- it's about how those vocals fit into the music. If you're going to construct a really good trance record and have vocals as another melodic element, it's fine. If you're going to write some vocals and build some trance-flavoured trappings around them, it isn't. And so forth. |
that's an interesting view.. for i'd have said the exact opposite
when you start with a vocal & construct a track around it, it becomes the centrepoint around which everything else is placed, thus resulting in greater chance of it fitting, like it was originally intended to be that way. if you come up with a -hot instrumental track beforehand though, there's a much greater chance of the vocal ruining it when you come to add it in, with a likelihood of it sounding slapped on, so to speak |
|
|
| Push2005 |
| quote: | Originally posted by isoterra
that's an interesting view.. for i'd have said the exact opposite
when you start with a vocal & construct a track around it, it becomes the centrepoint around which everything else is placed, thus resulting in greater chance of it fitting, like it was originally intended to be that way. if you come up with a -hot instrumental track beforehand though, there's a much greater chance of the vocal ruining it when you come to add it in, with a likelihood of it sounding slapped on, so to speak |
Yup, completely agree with this :) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| I'm not talking about throwing vocals over pre-made tracks. I'm talking about implementing the vocals from the start, but not having them be the reason the track exists. Vocal versions are crap because the original track wasn't built to have vocals in, which is different kettle of fish. |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not talking about throwing vocals over pre-made tracks. I'm talking about implementing the vocals from the start, but not having them be the reason the track exists. Vocal versions are crap because the original track wasn't built to have vocals in, which is different kettle of fish. |
fair enough.. but still i tend to prefer vocal tracks that wouldn't work without the vocal, if you get me. otherwise i'd rather have them as instrumental |
|
|
| charlie lloyd |
ive nothing against vocal tracks at all.
used properly in productions and they compliment the tracks but often 90% of vocal tracks dont cut the mustard. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sykonee
Nah, I can continue it here. Maybe some of the kidz will learn something along with this. ;)
I've an old compilation called Trance Traxx. Here are some of the tracks on it:
Snap! - Rhythm Is A Dancer
Captain Hollywood Project - Transformation
Le Park - Litchies
Hope - Tree Frog
Jaydee - Plastic Dreams
Now, there are some 'traxx' on this that would probably be deemed proper trance, but THESE one? The point here is just because something gets a 'trance' tag on it doesn't mean it really is. More likely it was used as a promotional tool, not as a means to put these tracks into a trance category.
The same can be said for a LOT of compilations and DJ mixes from around the late 90s/early '00s. In fact, this was how so much euro dance from then became regarded as trance, because they were put on compilations with a trance tag on them. But that doesn't make them actually trance any more than that old compilation made Plastic Dreams trance, despite some similarities in style. |
Oh I can definitely see what you mean because I can tell you that those tracks are surely NOT trance and I have never considered them it. I'm thinking more stuff like:
BT - Flaming June, Embracing The Future
PvD - For An Angel, Words, Another Way
Free Radcial - Surreal (En Motion Mix)
Hydra - Affinity (Thrillseekers Dub)
The Quest - C-Sharp
Solar Stone - Seven Cities, Solarcoaster
Tastexperience - Summersault, Tantrix, Highlander
Salt Tank - Eugina, Dimension (Voices of Reson Mix)
CDs:
Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport, GU: New York
DJ Tiesto - Magik and ISOS series (esp the first one), and
Armin van Buuren - Boundaries of Imagination, Universal Religion, and various CDs after Boundaries
Those i've always considered trance, and are almost always considered trance, and when people don't consider them trance because they aren't super hypnotic, psychadelic, repetitive stuff like some people mention, I just think "what are they then?" cause that sound on those CDs and tracks, are what I've known all of these years (like 7 years since I got into it). To me it's just kind of odd, because I just say "they are epic trance" or "progressive" and that's what they mostly are and it's an established genre. So there is no need to have the debate about what trance is, cause these are all well established as trance, even if they don't all trip you out and put you into one. |
|
|
| oziel |
| ^ some good sungs there |
|
|
|
|
